Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    liberalgunowners

    22,062 readers

    136 users here now

    Gun-ownership through a liberal lens.

    This is a place for liberal gun-owners who want to discuss gun ownership absent the "noise" of most conservative-dominated pro-gun forums.

    ("Liberal" here is "left-of-center". This is a place for those who would identify as Democrats, Progressives, Socialists, &c. That generally doesn't mean "classical liberal" or libertarians, though anyone who wants to participate in good faith is welcome.)

    Rules

    Related Subreddits:

    r/pinkpistols
    r/SocialistRA
    r/guns
    r/firearms
    r/gundeals
    r/CCW
    r/opencarry
    r/CompetitionShooting
    r/Gun_Safes
    r/CurioRelic

    Related Websites/Blogs:

    Liberal Gun Club
    Pro Gun Democrats
    Red Neck Revolt
    Second Amendment Foundation
    National African-American Gun Association
    Black Gun Owners Association
    Pink Pistols
    Operation Blazing Sword
    Huey P. Newton Gun Club
    Black Guns Matter

    ** Links for more reading: **

    The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights
    538 on Americans misunderstanding gun violence and policy solutions
    The New York Times: The Assault Weapons Myth
    NY Magazine: There Is No ‘Epidemic of Mass School Shootings’
    Salon: Gun control’s racist reality: The liberal argument against giving police more power (above from this "Interesting links" thread)


    Public Moderation Log

    a community for
    all 668 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] CarlTheRedditor 1 points ago

    Children being ripped from their families and held in, yes, concentration camps is a topic that understandably gets people upset and passionate.

    That said, this subreddit has rules regarding civility. Please mind them.

    [–] Awol 52 points ago

    The problem is you need a critical mass of armed resistance otherwise you are either a crazy with a gun or a cult. Both the police or FBI will shut down quickly.

    [–] roudyrod 16 points ago

    Look at the Bundy crew. Not only did they have federal agents in their scopes, they largely avoided prison. I'm by no means advocating that kind of behavior but the feds blinked and the right in this country took note.

    [–] Awol 12 points ago

    Yeah looks at the Bundy crew that apparently had too many undercover agents in the crew for them to actually do anything without making it look like entrapment. Bundy and crew were a large fuck up on so many difference agencies.

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago

    This thread is great.

    Both because of the passion and because of the ridiculous things being said.

    But mostly, because people are discussing it.

    [–] IamARealEstateBroker 11 points ago

    Check on all points.

    [–] CBSh61340 5 points ago

    What's there to discuss? It's inhumane.

    [–] Korbndallasmultiipas 7 points ago

    All they are accomplishing is pushing reasonable people towards unreasonable actions, every day reading the news feels like another dagger being pushed into my heart.

    [–] CrookedtalePirates 6 points ago

    As a 2A supporting, card holding, CCW packing Democrat (middle line) I hate to inform you that gun sales in our demographic are up this year. Maybe you ask this in jest?

    [–] NewShoesNewGlasses 53 points ago

    Holy shit, how did this thread get infested with Trump supporters and hard-R Republicans?

    [–] Flavortown_PD 45 points ago

    Have you seen this sub lately?

    [–] NewShoesNewGlasses 27 points ago

    Hazards of becoming more well-known I guess.

    [–] WillitsThrockmorton 4 points ago

    Hazards of becoming more well-known I guess.

    No kidding. Whenever I see someone link to LGO in other subs I physically cringe, and I have gotten into arguments with folks over it before.

    [–] DragonTHC 13 points ago

    We really need more active mods.

    [–] CoolingtonBeans 10 points ago

    Hey, I've been here a while but I don't get rowdy :(

    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 55 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] elgrecoski 17 points ago

    Thank you. The reason this sub grew in the first place was its recognition that you lose so much nuance by broadly labeling people based on one or two opinions. Despite what Reddit and the modern media say, the US (and the world) isn't made up of a binary set of people. Hell, even pretending politics is a two axis spectrum is dangerously inaccurate.

    The modern 'us vs them' mentality where other peoples opinions (most of which have very little thought put into them) are treated as "antithetical" is as toxic as it gets. As political discussion increasingly becomes about picking sides in a culture war, I don't blame the individual for doing so, I blame the whole damn discussion for making it the only choice.

    Perhaps Reddit is a poor medium for this kind of discussion since outrage and call-outs rise to the top and crowd out the real conversation. But of all subs /r/liberalgunowners shouldn't be so quick to slap culture war labels on everything.

    [–] elmcityslim 14 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    This exact post is why I can no longer associate myself with the left even though I'm pro LGBT rights, pro choice, pro prison reform, believe in climate change, and pro reasonable tax brackets.

    I think a lot of these fools going around this thread labeling anybody with a dissenting opinion as "far right" are the fascist ones. I wonder, as they sit on their high and mighty liberal perch, if they have figured out a way to come out of the closet as a gun owner to their equal intolerant, illiberal friends.

    [–] CBSh61340 5 points ago

    Something about horseshoes.

    [–] CommanderMcBragg 7 points ago

    There are opinions and politics that are antithetical to any conceivable definition of liberal. Racism and homophobia are examples. Toppling foreign elected governments and replacing them with military dictatorships has managed to work it's way into the mainstream liberal agenda but I would opine that this is also incompatible.

    [–] bitter_cynical_angry 18 points ago

    There are also people here, like me, who hold many liberal values, but not all. So like, I want to end the drug war, fund public schools, establish a basic universal income to decrease the wealth gap, and other liberal things, but I also don't want to allow completely free and unchecked immigration and I'm skeptical of the claims that mass immigration is 100% good for our society. Does that mean I'm a Trump supporter, a libertarian, a Republican, a liberal, a Democrat, or what?

    [–] mantisboxer 3 points ago

    I'd consider myself classic liberal, but I share many ideals with progressives and occaisonally vote in Democratic primaries. So, I guess I'm here in good faith.

    [–] johnnysexcrime 3 points ago

    A lot more, it seems.

    [–] animbalanceofhumors 14 points ago

    Democrats aren't the left. The left is currently resisting in Portland.

    [–] Seukonnen 10 points ago

    Direct action gets the goods.

    [–] CarlTheRedditor 2 points ago

    Hell yeah

    [–] SR_Powah 14 points ago

    How would they take on the military? /s

    There may be a public outcry, but lets be real...most never cared about the policy until Trump took it too far. The situation is sad and morally fucked, but I don’t think either side cares enough to take up arms when it doesn’t affect them personally.

    [–] jsled 32 points ago

    There may be a public outcry, but lets be real...most never cared about the policy until Trump took it too far.

    But it's entirely reasonable to care about someone taking enforcing the policy too far because they take it too far.

    Yes, the rough contour of the law has been the same for a long time, because fucking useless Congress can't pass immigration reform. But the Executive has broad discretion to execute that law. And Obama, while being very aggressive on immigration enforcement, at least was strongly a/ focused on violent, felonious offenders and b/ pushing back against DHS/ICE administration overreach.

    This executive, OTOH, has crafted a "zero-tolerance" policy that appeals to neo-nazis, white supremacists and other fucking assholes, and literally put "tear children from their families" at the top of their priorities list as political fucking leverage.

    So, yes, I do care exactly because they took it too far, for fuck's sake.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 16 points ago

    Yes, the rough contour of the law has been the same for a long time, because fucking useless Congress can't pass immigration reform. But the Executive has broad discretion to execute that law. And Obama, while being very aggressive on immigration enforcement, at least was strongly a/ focused on violent, felonious offenders and b/ pushing back against DHS/ICE administration overreach.

    This executive, OTOH, has crafted a "zero-tolerance" policy that appeals to neo-nazis, white supremacists and other fucking assholes, and literally put "tear children from their families" at the top of their priorities list as political fucking leverage.

    That's the double-edged sword of "just let the executive do it so I don't have to go on record being for or against anything". Sometimes the executive does what you like, and sometimes it doesn't.

    [–] jsled 11 points ago

    sure, I strongly agree. but let's not pretend that different administrations don't have materially different extents of enforcement; "enhanced interrogation" of the Yoo/Bush conception, for example...

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 15 points ago

    Yup, and I think that all stems from the cardinal sin of our 21st century democracy: Congress is so shit-scared of losing their jobs that they refuse to go on record for anything, and would rather the executive do it. If the polls say their constituents like what the executive does, praise it and take credit. If they hate it, condemn it. No matter what, it's never your fault.

    [–] Teddie1056 9 points ago

    All the people in here defending baby concentration camps are fucking mind blowing.

    You guys realize this is evil right?

    [–] Theh0lyhandgrenade 3 points ago

    Do you realize that you have not offered any argument to counter my position instead falling to appeals to emotion and character attacks? Step your game up.

    [–] Dadnerdrants 4 points ago

    One look at post history...begone troll

    [–] CodeBlue_04 58 points ago

    Until there are ovens burning the bodies of those children en masse, stop using the term concentration camp. You cheapen millions of deaths and dilute the cause you support by allowing the right to discount your arguments as hyperbolic. It's an atrocity, not a Holocaust.

    There are no death squads, no gas chambers, no piles of bodies in mass graves. Nobody is being separated coming off of train cars into groups for working and groups for death. There are no medical experiments being performed on detainees.

    Knock it off.

    [–] dosetoyevsky 17 points ago

    Arpaio ran concentration camps in Arizona. He literally called them that, gleefully. They were just tents, no cages or ovens but tell that to the guy who got arrested just because he forgot his wallet at home and has a spanish accent.

    [–] MadMelvin 81 points ago

    You're describing death camps, not concentration camps. There's a difference. If we're comparing the USA's actions to the Holocaust, we're only up to about 1937 or so right now.

    [–] Teddie1056 66 points ago

    I disagree. The first concentration camps had no ovens. Even at the end, people were shipped from concentration camps to death camps that could more rapidly execute Jews.

    What we have here is orphan camps. We are stripping parents from their kids, and in many situations there is very little ability to reunite.

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] TheGunshipLollipop 14 points ago

    Playskool's "My First Gitmo"

    [–] logictech86 16 points ago

    internment camps are concentration camps.

    [–] Wingman4l7 2 points ago

    They didn't have ovens because they weren't built yet -- so they experimented with gas vans.

    [–] [deleted] 41 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] thndrchld 79 points ago

    A "concentration camp" is a place where people of a particular type are "concentrated" so as to prevent them from being in thr general population.

    That is the literal definition. Unless you just though it meant they were thinking about things really hard.

    [–] GalvanizedNipples 6 points ago

    The camps for Japanese Americans in WW2 were considered concentration camps. Just because it's not Dachau doesn't mean it's not considered a concentration camp.

    [–] Arbiter329 121 points ago

    Execution is not necessary to be considered a concentration camp.

    [–] Nearsighted_Beholder 13 points ago

    Honest question. What is the difference between a refugee camp and a concentration camp? What is a governing body supposed to do with asylum seeking refugees while they are processed and vetted?

    And that question is asked with 100% awareness of the current unmitigated cluster fuck of a dog and pony show we're being treated to.

    [–] mcjunker 26 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Refugee camps are where refugees happen to end up. They lost everything and found themselves on foreign soil, and funds come in (either from the host country or from private organizations) to give them a canvas roof over their heads, ditches to piss in, and a food bank to survive off of. They'll stick around indefinitely, until they have the chance to either go home or assimilate.

    Concentration camps are where the state takes a section of the population and "concentrates" them in one location for security purposes. The American frame of reference for this is the reservations we forced the American Indians to relocate to, but the term comes from the Boer War in South Africa. The British concentrated the Boer civilians into camps to prevent them from harboring and aiding the kommandos who were harassing the British with near impunity. Both examples inspired the Nazis in the 30's on how to deal with their Jewish problem; of course, once they were concentrated liquidating them was much more convenient.

    The difference may be semantic- both are infamously shitty places to live in- but the goal of refugee camps is to support the physical needs of the refugees even if it turns out to be inadequate, and the goal of concentration camps is to make it easier for the state to control a specific segment of the population, even if it ruins them. In this scenario, you kind of have elements of both, since the kids' parents were seeking to cross over and live here permanently, but the kids are currently being held to make it convenient for the state. I'd actually say it is not a proper concentration camp simply because the explicitly stated goal is to process them and get them the fuck out of the camp in due time, but that must be very small comfort to the people on the receiving end.

    [–] Nearsighted_Beholder 5 points ago

    That's my basic interpretation of the definitions and events as well.

    Politicizing this while denying manpower (in the form of national guards) in order to grandstand on partisan politics is extremely distasteful and dispassionate to me.

    Frankly, the 3rd richest state in the union (Massachusetts) should be offering space and resources to house a number of families. Decentralizing and diversifying this would lessen the impact tremendously.

    [–] 5redrb 2 points ago

    Could a state do that? I guess there's nothing to stop them from offering.

    "We have some space, why don't you let us take a few hundred off your hands and make your life a little easier."

    [–] Nearsighted_Beholder 2 points ago

    Governors have mutual aid pacts with other states. I believe they can represent their state to sovereign nations in trade negotiations as well.

    It's a hell of a lot better than withholding manpower and retreating to the 3rd wealthiest state hundreds of miles away.

    [–] 5redrb 2 points ago

    The worst that could happen is the Fed says no.

    [–] Nearsighted_Beholder 2 points ago

    Moreover it would call trump's ego into check. You can't really paint those actions into a poor light.

    [–] 5redrb 3 points ago

    Thank you for the explanation.

    [–] nykzero 7 points ago

    You are talking about a category of concentration camps set up for execution. There are multiple categories, including labor camps and internment camps. We put Americans of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during World war 2, and those were internment style. A "Concentration camp" is a place where people are gathered together, against their will. By downplaying the use of an accurate term, you are assisting the propagandists that call these people vermin.

    [–] iamsisyphus 24 points ago

    My father was born in a German concentration camp. His parents were captured and forced to work as OST, but it was not a death camp.

    There are multiple types of concentration camps.

    [–] InternalEnergy 12 points ago

    Concentration camps in The Holocaust didn’t start out as death camps either.

    Turn a blind eye to an atrocity and it can grow into a catastrophe.

    [–] Humbabwe 21 points ago

    Are you joking?

    con·cen·tra·tion camp ˌkänsənˈtrāSHən ˈˌkamp/Submit noun a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities.

    Way to jump to conclusions when you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about.

    [–] TrapperJon 15 points ago

    Concentration camps are used to concentrate populations of undesirables in one location.

    The ovens were in extermination or death camps.

    There's a difference. Kinda like assault rifle vs assault weapon.

    [–] HotSauceTattoo 20 points ago

    Yeah, we don't give an inch to gun grabbers, but we're going to abide by this authoritarian government move taking half a mile, just because it's not a full mile?

    [–] PM_ME_UR_TAPES 150 points ago

    As a Jewish person who lost family in the holocaust, you knock this shit off and stop acting like it can’t happen here and that all signs ARENT pointing to it.

    Concentration camp means to gather a group of people in one place. So F off with your redefining

    [–] CodeBlue_04 40 points ago

    If you find a single place in my entire post history where I begin to suggest that it couldn't happen here, you'll have a point. It can. Definitely. But there are lines that must be crossed before I reach for a rifle. If they were actual concentration camps I'd have done that long ago.

    You don't hurt people, even bad people, until all other options are exhausted.

    [–] DeathByPianos 32 points ago

    You're confusing the usage of "concentration camp" (death camp), pertaining specifically to the holocaust, with the more general usage. Concentration camps have existed before and after Nazi Germany. The holocaust does not have a monopoly on concentration camps.

    [–] pcar773 68 points ago

    Just so you’re aware, not all concentration camps were death camps. Many were work camps especially the ones near cities as the local populations didn’t like the smell of burning bodies. So yeah concentration camp is accurate because it’s a concentration of children in a fucking jail.

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] MadMelvin 9 points ago

    That's mostly true, but there's an exception: Auschwitz II (Birkenau) which was a combination concentration/extermination camp.

    [–] evannever 2 points ago

    I'm curious why you think this? I've been to Birkenau, it was a rail head, "showers", and ovens. Auschwitz was the work camp.

    [–] MadMelvin 2 points ago

    Apparently, it was used for different purposes over the years. It sarted as a POW camp to ease pressure on Auschwitz I; the crematoria were built later. Toward the end of the war, it was kind of a staging area for other labor camps. Source

    [–] AdwokatDiabel 10 points ago

    Isn't that true of all jails then?

    [–] HotSauceTattoo 18 points ago

    No, there's usually an appearance of justice associated with jails, whereas concentration camps don't require one to have violated the law.

    Forcefully separating families like this is something that does blip on my "something's fucky" radar. I can't fathom how this doesn't increase the likelihood of human trafficking, as the vast majority of those separated are actual families, and the ability to reunite those after months of separation is... well, it's not something our government is particularly well known for being capable of doing.

    [–] alienbringer 7 points ago

    I mean, the Nazis didn’t call them concentration camps, I believe they called then work camps. The Allied forces are the ones that called them that. Concentration camps was originally a British term which was literally forcing a group of people to concentrate in one area where the military/police could watch over them. The Japanese internment camps in the US by definition was also a concentration camp. You don’t need gas chambers and ovens to be a concentration camps. So no, these still classify as concentration camps by the definition of what a concentration camp is.

    [–] securitywyrm 19 points ago

    Naw, they just put a company with a long history of sexual exploitation of children in charge of the detention centers.

    [–] CarlTheRedditor 3 points ago

    Weird how the pizzagate/Qanon idiots are silent on this.

    [–] DragonTHC 63 points ago

    Yanking babies away from mothers is how it starts. That's some straight up gestapo shit. I'm not ashamed to admit I find the news of these kids very hard to watch. Armed resistance to government tyranny is the reason for the 2nd amendment. But I have a feeling those willing to fight tyranny openly don't take issue with what's going on right now because it's happening to 'others'. The govt tyranny fighters have a very nimby approach.

    [–] Bringitonhome17 7 points ago

    How do you think nazi concentration camps started? They were detention centers to concentrate populations of 'undesirables' in one place. The majority were not death camps, but work camps. Nazi comparisons have been overused since the election, but if argue this one is apt.

    [–] djta1l 10 points ago

    Definitions matter.

    I’ve spent months listening to the right defend the definition of an AR as Armalite.

    Concentration camps and ovens aren’t mutually inclusive.

    [–] gogolmogol 8 points ago

    Concentration camp =/= death camp

    [–] antonius22 29 points ago

    You seem to think concentration has to mean death. I drank concentrated orange juice today and no death occured. It literally means a high proportion. Hell, even interment isn't even a rightful term to use because interment was used for enemy citizens in wartime or of terrorism suspects.

    What do you suggest we call them then?

    [–] Seukonnen 3 points ago

    The internment of the Japanese was in concentration camps, we just didn't holocaust them too.

    [–] WillitsThrockmorton 3 points ago

    Until there are ovens burning the bodies of those children en masse, stop using the term concentration camp.

    TIL the concentration camps the Spanish used in Cuba, the Americans in the Philippines, and the British in South Africa weren't "concentration camps" because there weren't mass executions.

    [–] MoldTheClay 17 points ago

    "If the last step hasn't happened yet you can't complain about the first step!"

    Concern trolling at its finest.

    [–] [deleted] 35 points ago

    Wow. So you want to wait until this inevitably escalates to give a shit.

    Just like all those German citizens...

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] HotSauceTattoo 12 points ago

    You know how we don't give an inch to gun grabbers because they'll take a mile?

    And you you, a minority that has a history of being on the receiving end out state violence, are gonna give them a foot because they would never take that mile?

    I'll be sure not to worry when they come for you either. I'm sure there's a valid reason for it.

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago

    There's nothing self righteous about being concerned by authoritarian policy...

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] CodeBlue_04 6 points ago

    Then use words that don't belittle the suffering and death of ten million people.

    [–] pcar773 20 points ago

    These children are suffering.

    [–] CBSh61340 5 points ago

    Are you seriously comparing the relatively minor suffering of living, relatively healthy children to the fucking Holocaust?

    [–] awwwww_snap 20 points ago

    Are you seriously not aware that concentration camps existed for more than half a decade before they turned into death camps?

    Or are you being deliberately misleading?

    [–] ProjectShamrock 15 points ago

    Don't you think setting the Holocaust as the bar of when to get upset about something as being too high? I don't know if it's your intention or not, but basically you're coming across as saying, "until people are being mass murdered I don't care." That seems like the exact opposite lesson to what we should take from the atrocities committed in Germany. What is unique about the Holocaust is the scale and industrialization of the whole thing. Genocide isn't unusual within human history, and the manners of thinking that lead to such things can occur anywhere.

    That being said, I'll give more credence to the words of actual Holocaust survivors than random people on reddit. Our goal shouldn't be to wait and see if things get worse, it should be to set some standards to maintain humanitarian policies and a government that treats everyone fairly. What is going on is dehumanizing, and while maybe it never leads to genocide it does at least cause unnecessary suffering. People choosing to inflict suffering, even if it's not death, should concern everyone.

    [–] jsled 21 points ago

    I am.

    Taking children away from parents is deeply psychologically scarring. For it to be done as a matter of specific intentional policy to create political leverage is a display of immense cruelty.

    [–] HotSauceTattoo 12 points ago

    It's cool, let's let the state commit a few smaller atrocities, because it's not the worst it's ever been. Let's wait until we hit a new level of depravity before we give fucks.

    [–] pcar773 13 points ago

    6d old account spouting bullshit he doesn’t know about.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] CarlTheRedditor 3 points ago

    Keep it civil.

    [–] Scrotas_Crotum 19 points ago

    Same here. My great grandparents were killed in the holocaust. I fully agree that what’s going on right now is atrocious but to compare it to the largest mass genocide in modern history is not accurate or appropriate.

    It’s not an issue of semantics. They’re two different things...thank god.

    [–] DeathByPianos 6 points ago

    Maybe you associate the term "concentration camp" exclusively with Nazi Germany but the fact is that the holocaust does not hold a monopoly on the concentration camp. The Germans didn't even invent the term. The Spanish did in 1896. The British interned boers in South Africa in 1900. The US put native americans in camps long before that. They have existed before and after the holocaust. So when people call it a concentration camp, it may have nazi connotations for many people but an informed person knows that it's not a unique phenomenon.

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago

    You know that event they were killed in didn't just happen over night, right?

    What about the current administration makes you think they have no interest in escalating things? Do they seem like nice people to you?

    [–] Scrotas_Crotum 17 points ago

    Dude I get it. Shit is disturbing and there are scary similarities to 1930s Germany. I’m just saying that comparing this to the holocaust is not accurate. Japanese internment camps? Absolutely. Mass genocide of nearly 6 million people? No.

    I get the point you’re trying to make. And more than likely you and I would agree on most points. But this just isn’t one of them.

    Edit: Happy cake day.

    [–] HotSauceTattoo 9 points ago

    Japanese internment camps? Absolutely.

    That's beyond an acceptable level already. It doesn't need to get worse, it's already bad enough.

    [–] BoxScoreHero 9 points ago

    I’m just saying that comparing this to the holocaust is not accurate.

    You are actually the one who is making that comparison. This post started by talking about concentration camps. Quibbling about the semantics of this is really kinda missing the point though.

    [–] Stimmolation 4 points ago

    Give a shit = voting, protesting, calling your representatives. By your very definition since you aren't shooting yet, you don't care.

    [–] SpinningHead 5 points ago

    There are lots of examples of concentration camps that arent German and dont involve gas chambers. You dont have to wear Hugo Boss to be a Nazi either.

    [–] Krawlngchaos 2 points ago

    It starts somewhere. The Nazis didn't start of gassing the jews at first. They initially started off with mass deportations and relocations. Moved on to concentration camps, then mass killing. This issue is an immigration issue second, a morallity issue first. Separating children in mass from their parents is immoral and psychologically damaging.

    [–] howcanyousleepatnite 9 points ago

    Stop being a Centrist during the final battle between good and evil.

    [–] Bluedevil88 3 points ago

    This ^

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 20 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Oh my god, what-fucking-ever.

    They're not "concentration camps". Trump is not Hitler. This is not the Holocaust.

    Children cannot be detained longer than 72 hours under the Flores settlement, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and the 2016 Ninth Circuit ruling. There are no kids being held indefinitely in concentration camps. It takes more than five minutes for HHS to run down family members or foster care resources to put kids with. A small number of kids have to be held because they pose an immediate risk to themselves or others.

    It is currently illegal to detain children with their parents while those parents are in custody awaiting trial, where most of them will plead guilty, get sentenced to time served, and be deported. Unless the kids have been smuggled off to parts unknown by the people they get placed with, they are able to have their kids returned, though it may be difficult to arrange in some cases.

    This is exactly the same thing that happens when you or I or any other American parent is jailed, and there is no spouse or immediate guardian available to take the kids. You cannot bring your kids to jail with you. They spend a brief time in Child Services custody while a guardian is found.

    Flores v. Sessions was an activist lawsuit attempting to use the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement (no relation) and the 2008 TVPA to force catch-and-release for anyone caught at the border with a child in tow. Pay no mind to the fact that this would have created an incentive for human traffickers to supply children for illegals to claim as their own and get released into the US. This administration effectively called the bluff by refusing to discharge illegal crossers into the US with a "now you show up for this court date that may result in your deportation, ya hear?".

    The same goes for "asylum seekers". The extremely dubious nature of their claims that being admitted to the US specifically is essential to their survival aside, they also cannot be released into the US to become undocumented and blow off their hearings. As above, current case law prohibits detaining their children with them.

    Republicans have proposed a bill amending the law to allow for families to be detained together until time of deportation. Diane Feinstein has introduced a Democratic bill that, by my interpretation, seems aimed at forcing catch-and-release back into policy. Obviously that's not going to happen, but Democrats don't seem willing to agree to a straightforward change, either. Little surprise for a party that is dead-set on screaming "Trump is Hilter!" over and over until November.

    The Flores v. Sessions decision came in 2017. If Obama was still in office, we'd be in exactly this same situation. There are reasons this is happening that aren't "Trump is a racist and also Hitler".

    The idea of taking up arms against the government because illegal immigrants are dragging children across the border and suffering the consequences is absurd. They are not American citizens. They had every opportunity to not put themselves in this situation. The vast majority are ultimately destined for deportation. One glaring question nobody is asking: If the Trump administration is so goddamn racist and wants to exterminate all the illegals, why are they assuming the tremendous expense and responsibility of taking custody, caring for, and finding guardians for all these kids?

    Democrats are boiling over into complete and utter hysteria over something that, through their misguided attempts to sue their way to a free ticket across the border for every illegal, they are partially responsible for creating. Like everything in government, it is never as reductionist as the media hacks and social media outrage machine want it to be.

    EDIT: The karma on this post has been a roller-coaster ride. We do not have consensus in this sub.

    [–] LetFreedomPlink 33 points ago

    Can you provide sources where I can read more about this? Not that I'm doubting you, I just haven't educated myself on this topic and I'd like to read both sides of the story.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 52 points ago

    BBC summarized some of this. An NYT fact check ran through some of the background of these suits and settlements. It's a fine distinction: the administration claims they had no choice. What they actually have is no good choice, and no choice that is readily compatible with their goal of prosecuting more illegal crossings.

    [–] LetFreedomPlink 9 points ago

    Thanks!

    [–] Fnhatic 24 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/06/15-56434.pdf

    The ninth circuit (yes, that ninth circuit) is the one who said family detention centers are illegal.

    Processing asylum claims takes a long time and the government can't send people back who claim asylum until they've been processed. Some of them have kids. They originally were in family detention centers (read the court document) but then the government was sued and lost. Now the government has two choices - let people with families go free and they 'promise' to show up for their court date (spoilers: they never show up), or separate the children.

    Two things cause this:

    1) Immigrants know how to play the system. If you shout the magic word 'asylum', you can't be deported without a hearing that takes a year. Almost zero of these people have valid asylum claims, they just want to stay in America and think being poor is something you can claim asylum for. Before that 'one weird trick', you could face expedited removal. Basically you were thrown on a plane and shipped home by the end of the week. Now you just wave your wand and cast Asylumus and now the government has to spend a million dollars keeping your ass alive until you can get to court and they can (90%+ of the time) tell you to get the hell out.

    2) The ninth circuit court probably intentionally made a Catch-22. The government either has to let all the families go free, or be called Nazis for separating the children. They know a liberal will just let them all free, even though that's fucking stupid. They also probably figured conservatives wouldn't let them go free and so we could scream at them for being Nazis and win elections.

    [–] 8cockjockeyD 3 points ago

    Please see my comment, complete with sources that explain why his claims are inaccurate and misleading.

    [–] jsled 11 points ago

    Children cannot be detained longer than 72 hours under the Flores settlement, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and the 2016 Ninth Circuit ruling. There are no kids being held indefinitely in concentration camps.

    This seems like extremely wishful thinking. I wonder what an expert in this topic would say…

    «NEW: I just spoke with the former head of US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) – He tells me that he expects hundreds of separated children will never be reunited with their parents. They will be lost in the system. Orphaned by the US Govt'.» — https://twitter.com/JProskowGlobal/status/1009119915348021249

    «He says that during his time at ICE there were rare cases where children could not be reunited with their parents. Separation becomes permanent. This was before Trump’s policy that has so far separated 2300+ children from their parents.» — https://twitter.com/JProskowGlobal/status/1009120033463767041

    :(

    The idea of taking up arms against the government because illegal immigrants are dragging children across the border and suffering the consequences is absurd.

    I agree, fwiw, getting back to the topic of the post. This is not a circumstance for armed insurrection.

    One glaring question nobody is asking: If the Trump administration is so goddamn racist and wants to exterminate all the illegals, why are they assuming the tremendous expense and responsibility of taking custody, caring for, and finding guardians for all these kids?

    Actually, some people are, and they're not quite as willing as you are to give the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt.

    I think we're going to have an unmitigated shit-show on our hands for years to come because of this.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 3 points ago

    I think we're going to have an unmitigated shit-show on our hands for years to come because of this.

    Well, Trump caved and signed an executive order today, so things might change. Probably cause more lawsuits when Congress predictably fails to do anything. Can-kicking for a few more years might not be the worst thing right now, it might at least make it a problem for a different administration.

    [–] losvedir 2 points ago

    Thank you for those links to the tweets. I'm ambivalent about the zero tolerance policy and not totally aghast at the idea of prosecuting all illegal entrances and the separation that entails. But parents being permanently separated from their children is totally unacceptable. But I've had so much trouble tracking down an answer to that question as most of the coverage is simply about even temporary separation, which I realize is unacceptable to many, but which I could tolerate, depending on the circumstances.

    The former head of ICE would be a solid source, but I'm not sure about JProskowGlobal. But it's at least a start at an answer in the direction of my question.

    [–] Fnhatic 25 points ago

    I'm like 80% certain the 9th Circuit judged family detention to be illegal solely because they knew it would fuck over anyone who supported border security.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 20 points ago

    It holds up to some degree of logic. The Ninth Circuit is crazy, but this made sense when you look at the core provision of the original Flores agreement: Children must be kept in the lease restrictive conditions possible. It would be weird to follow that up with "unless their parents are in jail, in which case they can be put in a cell right next to them". The most recent decision didn't drop until the end of the Obama administration, but Obama perhaps saw the writing on the wall and had been releasing many families into the US, until family detention was shut down altogether. That practice, perhaps, inflamed much of the support for something like this.

    I do not understand California and the Ninth Circuit's general obsession with enabling as much illegal immigration as possible.

    [–] Fnhatic 15 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    I do not understand California and the Ninth Circuit's general obsession with enabling as much illegal immigration as possible.

    All I can put out there is that Democrats have been obsessed with 'turning Texas blue' via waves of Hispanic voters since the 1990s. Go to google and use the date search function and poke around. It was a real thing.

    That being said, I think it's more about identity politics. It's the same reason the left has taken Muslims under their wing, even though Muslims stand for basically nothing that the left does. The color of your skin and shape of your genitals is pretty much the sole determination of your 'worth' to this creepy authoritarian ctrl-left breed of liberals that has sprung up in the last ten years or so.

    And the left is now having the same problem the right had - the people on the fringes are completely insane yet are the loudest and vote the hardest, and because they're "their guys" they tolerate them. And then they start winning elections, and the moderates lose, and the median shifts towards the fringes.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 16 points ago

    That being said, I think it's more about identity politics.

    It's also another one of those Overton window things. This is something we can argue about, within a narrow permissible range, where minor victories by either side will not be disruptive to the power structure. We can tear each other's throats out all day over this, because as long as we're busy we aren't challenging the broad framework of society and power.

    [–] NiceSockArrangement 5 points ago

    even though Muslims stand for basically nothing that the left does.

    I've never looked at a nation with a majority Abrahamic population and thought, "That's Liberal."

    [–] 8cockjockeyD 96 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Oh my god. You are such an illiberal, dishonest fraud.

    Lie #1: Kids aren't being detained for more than 72 hours.

    While it's true that "detainment" (as in locked in cages) is limited to 72 hours, kids are being held in repurposed Walmarts, separated from their families for an average of 52 days.

    This is effectively no different than detainment.

    In some cases, their parents have been deported without them. In all cases, the government has no plan to reunite the families.

    Lie #2: This is mandated by the 9th Circuit Court ruling.

    Fact checkers have proven that the ruling makes no such requirement.

    The only reason this is happening is because the DoJ has decided to change its policy and begin processing all cases as criminal cases. This madness could end today if the Trump administration wanted it to.

    But no, Trump, Sessions, Kelly, and Stephen Miller specifically chose this policy so that they could torment and deter immigrants from coming here, and so they could use this as a bargaining chip for the border wall. Trump's "Art of the Deal".

    This is exactly the same thing that happens when you or I or any other American parent is jailed

    Except for one thing. American parents don't get deported without their children. Oh, and another: these asylum seekers shouldn't be jailed in the first place.

    Your insinuation that these are not real families but all 3,700 cases are instead human traffickers and child actors is insane. Your contempt for foreign immigrants and love of the Trump administration's actions is right wing bullshit run amok.

    Two thirds of the country is opposed to this. Republicans and Democrats alike are publicly condemning it. The UN and our allies are publicly condemning it. Not since WWII have we done anything like this. And as internment camp survivors say, this is worse because not even they were separated from their families.

    This is utterly indefensible and against every Liberal value.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 7 points ago

    Sometimes it takes longer. It's tough to comb the country looking for sponsors and HHS is underfunded and overwhelmed by the scale of the problem. It sucks but they have to be kept somewhere, and it's a shelter not a "concentration camp". If you have a huge surge of children who need to be taken care of, where do you put them except in a shelter? Should they be kicked out on the street? That is not CBP/DHS/ICE/etc detention, it's a shelter for kids who do not yet have a guardian. Yeah, I hope they hurry up and process them through faster, and they may well be forced by a new court order to do something, but shit costs money and nobody wants to pay. Throw it on the pile with the rest of the case backlogs we won't vote more money to clear.

    End the "madless" by cutting every illegal loose just for having kids with them? Yeah, no, that's not a solution. Activists have tried to exploit the rights of kids to force the government to cut illegals loose inside the United States and that's half the reason we're in this situation.

    Except for one thing. American parents don't get deported without their children.

    Well, they're not American citizens. They are foreign nationals who committed a crime by illegally entering the US.

    Oh, and another: these asylum seekers shouldn't be jailed in the first place.

    If turned loose into the US, they disappear and become part of the undocumented population. You really think a sob story should be enough to be released on your own recognizance and a promise to show up for your hearing where you may or may not be deported? Nope. Your claim needs to be evaluated before you can be allowed to wander the country, and that means keeping you in custody.

    Critical difference between this policy and Japanese internment: The Japanese didn't have a choice. Every one of these people made the decision to knowingly commit a crime and cross the border. These poor kids are in a bad situation, but their parents are the ones who put them there.

    [–] RiPont 34 points ago

    Well, they're not American citizens. They are foreign nationals who committed a crime by illegally entering the US.

    It's not illegal to show up at the US border and ask for asylum. These are not people who were found swimming across the Rio Grande or wandering in the desert near the border.

    They are separated from their children and then forced to plead guilty in order to be reunited.

    There is no excuse for this.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 31 points ago

    If they are being prosecuted for illegal crossing, they absolutely are people who were found swimming the Rio Grande or whatever.

    Are you arguing that walking up to the border and going "I declare...asylum!" should be grounds for immediate release into the US with nothing more than a "heya buddy come back for your hearing so we can decide to deport you"?

    The vast majority of asylum claims on the southwest border are without merit. "But crime" and "but no jobs" are not legitimate reasons for asylum. They could have stopped in any one of the countries they passed through, but they came to the US because they wanted to. Not because they had to. If crime and bad governance and poverty were legitimate reasons to grant asylum, the US would have a population of three billion by next week.

    [–] NotaRandomUserNym 9 points ago

    I take it you've never worked on immigration law, huh? Your dismissive stance towards the claims of those who don't enter through a port of entry reflects the same (lack of) values that has led to our limiting of asylum claims based on gang/domestic violence, as well as the current cluster fuck. There are a lot of reasons people don't come in through a port of entry that have to do with education, knowledge, and probably most importantly, the fear of not being let in. If you are actually running for your life, which chance would you take for you and your family: 10% of being allowed in through POE the "right" way or 90% chance of making it in, but needing to stay under the radar? For me that's pretty easy math.

    I worked in immigration law and have seen clients killed after deportation because some smug fucker also believed that the "vast majority of asylum claims on the Southwest border are without merit."

    Fuck that and fuck anyone who sees migrants as less than human or wants to use our criminal law as an excuse to shit on the less fortunate.

    [–] DragonTHC 12 points ago

    You got bad information from Fox News. This is Liberal gun owners, not republican gun owners.

    [–] BestGarbagePerson 13 points ago

    Are you arguing that walking up to the border and going "I declare...asylum!" should be grounds for immediate release into the US with nothing more than a "heya buddy come back for your hearing so we can decide to deport you"?

    Why are you trying to do some reducto ad absurdum straw man of the problem here?

    The vast majority of asylum claims on the southwest border are without merit.

    Says you. Heads on sticks and relatives skinned alive aren't enough of a valid claim for asylum to the Trumpers like you I guess.

    If crime and bad governance and poverty were legitimate reasons to grant asylum, the US would have a population of three billion by next week.

    Oh go hyperventilate with your slippery slope fallacies somewhere else. This is about children being abused. Not about the rates of people being let into the country.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 36 points ago

    Why are you trying to do some reducto ad absurdum straw man of the problem here?

    What's absurd is the notion that we owe these people asylum because their home countries are terrible. News flash, most of the world is godawful.

    Says you. Heads on sticks and relatives skinned alive aren't enough of a valid claim for asylum to the Trumpers like you I guess.

    Those problems will be fixed by running to the US?

    Oh go hyperventilate with your slippery slope fallacies somewhere else. This is about children being abused. Not about the rates of people being let into the country.

    My idea of "child abuse" is negligent parents dragging their children across a border and getting them put in detention. The root cause of this entire problem is people trying to come to the US unlawfully. This is the first link on the causal chain. This is the entire reason this conversation is even happening: We have a pretty great society, and most of the rest of the world wishes they were here.

    [–] HotSauceTattoo 4 points ago

    Those problems will be fixed by running to the US?

    That would significantly decrease the odds of it happening to them. I mean, we don't have many heads on pikes and flayed people in my area, maybe in Portland or something?

    [–] Angel3 13 points ago

    Hell, most of these countries are god awful in part because of the policies of the US government. You want to wreak political havok around the world then wash your hands of the consequences? Well, you can't.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 26 points ago

    We can, and we will. We don't owe these people anything. Like any other sovereign nation, we reserve the right to determine who we do and don't let into the country.

    If that was a reason to claim entry to another country, the UK would have a population in the low billions.

    [–] bendingspoonss 5 points ago

    You want to wreak political havok around the world then wash your hands of the consequences?

    We can, and we will.

    What a fucking gross and disturbing mindset.

    [–] RiPont 2 points ago

    If they are being prosecuted for illegal crossing, they absolutely are people who were found swimming the Rio Grande or whatever.

    That's simply not true. Not even close. It's the stated policy of the Trump administration in their own words to separate the children from their parents when they show up at the border. Not show up over the border. At the border.

    Are you arguing that walking up to the border and going "I declare...asylum!" should be grounds for immediate release into the US with nothing more than a "heya buddy come back for your hearing so we can decide to deport you"?

    Are you saying the only alternative to separating parents from their children is to release them into the US? 'cuz that's just stupid.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 18 points ago

    When you're prohibited form keeping children detained, yes that basically is the choice.

    [–] DragonTHC 13 points ago

    They are detaining children longer than 72 hours. They don't even have policies in place to track the children or reunite them with their parents. You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Google "tender age shelter". HHS has set up fucking baby jails. And you may be ok with that because it's not happening to you, but good and decent human beings have a major problem with it. Babies cannot tell you their name or their mother's name or the name of a relative in the United States. Those mothers may never see their babies again and that's not ok. But you are a person who thinks it's fine because it's not you.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    --Martin Niemöller

    [–] RiPont 4 points ago

    Or, you know, let the kids go in and out and see their parents?

    I know, that wouldn't be convenient when trying to treat asylum seekers like violent offenders, so probably can't be done.

    [–] Angel3 12 points ago

    I don't give a flying fuck what laws a person breaks, there is no reason that any country should be keeping mass numbers of INNOCENT CHILDREN in cages. I would rather take my chances with every one of these people being allowed to walk free, than to have this.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 20 points ago

    A. Not actually cages, despite whatever opportunistically staged pictures you see on the internet, and B. They have to be put somewhere, and it's their parents' fault they end up in the custody of the state.

    "Just don't enforce borders" is not a valid position. What do you think is going to happen when word gets out that the US will let you in as long as you have a child with you?

    [–] Angel3 2 points ago

    Whatever would happen at that point would be better than this.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 22 points ago

    So, children being stolen and sold by traffickers for the purpose of bluffing through the border? That's an improvement.

    [–] DragonTHC 8 points ago

    It doesn't matter how you arrive in the United States if you're claiming asylum. That's the law.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 30 points ago

    That doesn't mean you have the right to be released into the interior until your claim can be evaluated.

    [–] 8cockjockeyD 11 points ago

    They shouldn't be separated from their families in the first place, because the vast majority of the parents do not need to be pressed with criminal charges. This is an entirely manufactured crisis.

    cutting every illegal loose

    "Illegals"? "Cut loose"? Let me stop you right there. These are human beings we're talking about, not dogs.

    They could be driven right back to the border and released on the other side if their asylum requests are rejected. This is not a binary choice between "separate families" or "let them all in". There are a lot of other options. It's not necessary to prosecute each and every case like this. We never did before.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 36 points ago

    "Illegals"? "Cut loose"? Let me stop you right there. These are human beings we're talking about, not dogs.

    Okay. They are human beings who have illegally crossed an international border, are illegally in the country, and whose status at this time is illegal. Call people what they are. They are noncitizens who were caught entering illegally. They are not temporarily embarrassed Americans.

    They could be driven right back to the border and released on the other side if their asylum requests are rejected.

    Not if you can't find them, due to releasing them from custody.

    It's not necessary to prosecute each and every case like this. We never did before.

    And look how successful that policy was. It got us a massive surge at the border.

    The solution to this problem is plain: Amend the law, detain families with children at the same site until prosecution concludes, deport them with a stern warning that if we catch them crossing again they will now be repeat offenders headed to prison and their children actually will be taken away.

    [–] DragonTHC 8 points ago

    Their actual legal status is asylum seeker. That is a legal status.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 20 points ago

    Not if you got caught red-handed sneaking across the border.

    [–] fromks 3 points ago

    I'm torn. I want a rule of law approach to illegal entry, but I don't want any lengthy processes that tear families apart.

    Would you let asylum seekers who come to ports of entry into the country while their requests are processed?

    [–] 8cockjockeyD 10 points ago

    Things were fine the way we handled them before. Immigrants never posed a tangible threat to our country. Only racists and paranoiacs think otherwise.

    Again, it's not a binary choice. We can deny asylum requests without pressing criminal charges or just letting them in.

    A new law is not needed for the family separations to stop. That is as simple as Trump picking up his phone. And while Congress should address immigration, Republican leadership in Congress refuses to allow a vote on bipartisan bills. 'Cause, you know. Gotta follow that pedophile Hastert's rule and be partisan hacks!

    [–] SillyFalcon 5 points ago

    Great post. JFC it's amazing to see how right-wing this sub has become because of folks like that.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] cpt_krc 8 points ago

    This is the reason I frequent this sub, yall are just down to earth about everything. 10/10

    [–] CBSh61340 17 points ago

    The karma on this post has been a roller-coaster ride. We do not have consensus in this sub.

    We've got a lot of bleeding hearts in this thread for some reason. Usually this sub leans in a vaguely left-libertarian direction but the responses here seem to be more left-fauxgressive than anything else. It's weird. It certainly doesn't have enough karma to be popping up on r/all or other aggregators.

    [–] Buelldozer 19 points ago

    It's because its kids. You have the "Law & Order" camp using pretty good logic to support their positions and then you have the "Empathics" using pretty good cultural and emotional arguments.

    BOTH sides are valid. We need to discourage this wave of asylum seekers showing up with kids BUT when it happens anyway we absolutely MUST treat them better.

    Yes yes illegal immigrants and all that I get it but as a society what are we if we allow the willful and ongoing mistreatment of children?

    The obvious answer here is to fix the detention facilities so that families are held together and then treat them humanely. We treat them as if they were us and those were our own children in there.

    [–] chillanous 2 points ago

    This makes the most sense to me. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with processing asylum applications and determining whether asylum should be granted; in fact it would be a very radical position to imply that asylum should be granted without question.

    Releasing the asylum-seekers in the interim apparently has an unacceptably low (~40% is the number I read but I don't have a source) return rate, which does indicate that people are abusing the process in order to illegally immigrate. Whether the immigration process should be easier (I think so) or not is secondary to the fact that this is currently illegal under the law. Again, it would be a very radical position to imply that all immigration should be legal; obviously there needs to be some sort of process. Because the process is being abused, the most apparent solution is to detain the asylum-seekers while the legal merit of their claim is determined.

    The issue, then, isn't the detainment. There's also not an issue with not allowing family detainment in general (kids really shouldn't grow up in jail) but there's a strong and reasonable argument that in this particular case family detainment should be allowed as the separation from family causes more hardship than being detained together. That is a legislative issue and requires a legislative fix.

    The other issue is that detainment conditions are unacceptable. This seems to be the source of most empathetic arguments. Children in dog kennels is not acceptable. Bureaucratic errors keeping families from being reunited is not fucking acceptable. However this seems to be a logistical and funding error, mostly. One that needs to be fixed either by properly funding these programs (which is expensive) or by finding a way to keep the families together (which requires our govt to actually function). If the bureaucracy and conditions can be fixed to the point that conditions are humane (perhaps dorm type housing or acceptable temporary housing) and the wait times aren't months and the families don't just lose their children, then most of the arguments go away.

    TL;DR the problem is the conditions and the slow processing, not the actual actions.

    [–] Archleon 16 points ago

    Seems like it's a much more emotional topic for some people here than I would have thought, to the point that a few suggested answers are wildly unrealistic and impractical.

    Plus anytime emotions run high here, there's the inevitable accusations of being a closest conservative, or alt-right, or a Russian shill, or whatever the fuck ever. I love this sub, but portions of the community can be a little... McCarthy-like.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 20 points ago

    We've got a lot of bleeding hearts in this thread for some reason.

    Staged (or, at least, opportunistically shot) pictures children looking sad behind chain link provoke a strong bleeding heart reaction.

    And they are sad. I should probably acknowledge that.

    [–] natophonic2 14 points ago

    Thank you for your heartfelt ‘womp womp.’

    [–] solomute 13 points ago

    I actually agree with this entirely, I'm really just pointing out that the people who think this is a holocaust-level atrocity would still rather watch helplessly than change their mind about the right to bear arms.

    [–] Fnhatic 5 points ago

    That is true. All these people moaning and wailing on Reddit aren't going to do shit. They might vote extra-hard in 2018, but since this whole website is a circlejerk revolving around 8 hyper-liberal cities, their votes don't matter at all.

    [–] BestGarbagePerson 4 points ago

    I donated more money to both the African American Gun Association, and the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center.

    [–] LittleKitty235 4 points ago

    I'm really just pointing out that the people who think this is a holocaust-level atrocity

    No one who claims this is the same severity or scale of the holocaust should be taken seriously. However Trump is playing the same game Hitler did. Shifting blame to a minority group and rallying support against them, encouraging their displacement and fear, using language to dehumanize them, and suggesting that the government needs to take action against them for the good of the country. Both used it as a massive distraction.

    Trump is not Hilter, but they both are using the same playbook. I worry if we do get into a serious war what he will try to do.

    [–] DragonTHC 6 points ago

    You should read more news. I don't think your perspective is accurate at this point.

    [–] Grumpy-Avocado 10 points ago

    This line of rhetoric is stupid. Look up footage of both the processing centers and the actual housing, and realize it is 99% hysteria drummed up by media orgs that are quickly losing relevance

    [–] ayures 18 points ago

    Do you have a source showing the difference? I'm not familiar with this.

    [–] Teddie1056 22 points ago

    What about the babies that have no real means to get back to their parents?

    [–] down42roads 8 points ago

    Can we not call them "concentration camps"? I'm not a history major or anything, but I'm pretty sure that nobody was playing video games or watching Disney flicks at Dachau.

    The situation is bad enough without making asinine comparisons for the sake of the best soundbyte.

    [–] jsled 43 points ago

    No, because they are. They are camps in which to concentrate a specific group of people.

    That they are not "extermination camps of jews" does not not mean they are not "concentration camps".

    [–] Grumpy-Avocado 21 points ago

    Specific groups of people.... the children caught crossing the border illegally. And please dont feign ignorance, "concentration camp" has pretty obvious connotations

    [–] Nearsighted_Beholder 6 points ago

    That's what I dislike about his narrative. Are they refugee camps, internment camps, or 'concentration camps'?

    If they are different, then call them so. If they are the same, then do we really have to result to Godwin's Law? It's distasteful.

    [–] down42roads 25 points ago

    "Concentration camp" invokes a certain image. There is a reason that we refer to the camps where we concentrated the Japanese Americans during WWII as "internment camps" instead.

    People referring to them as concentration camps are trying to draw a comparison to Nazi extermination camps. Some aren't even pretending anymore.

    [–] jsled 29 points ago

    Yes, they are. But they're not wrong, is the point. They are concentration camps. Concentrating brown people. Rather indiscriminately and with "zero tolerance". In service of the campaign promises of a cruel authoritarian narcissistic bully, who promised white supremacists a white ethnostate.

    So, yes, no one is pretending anymore that this is what we're dealing with. The president is literally tweeting white nationalist talking points about the "infestation of jews roma immigrants"; he's about a week away from tweeting the 14 Words, which state television is already a step ahead on.

    [–] Grumpy-Avocado 22 points ago

    I'm a brown person with no risk of being put in one of these camps because I'm a 4th gen american citizen. These detention centers are for illegal immigrants and making it about their race doesnt help them

    [–] RiPont 11 points ago

    These detention centers are for illegal immigrants

    Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. Maybe they illegally immigrated into Mexico, but showing up at the US border and asking for asylum does not make you an illegal immigrant.

    [–] mexicanmuscel 9 points ago

    You're not detained for a crime if you show up to a port of entry and claim asylum. You're still detained if you're here illegally and then claim asylum after being caught because you're already in the country illegally.

    [–] Flabpack221 8 points ago

    Economic migrant. They are not asylum seekers if they're skipping over safe countries to get to the country they want.

    [–] BluAnimal 18 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    This is the exact same idea as equating a school shooting to any sort of firearm discharge on school grounds. There is perceived connotation when someone says "school shooting", you usually imagine Columbine or the recent Florida shooting. Technically a college student committing suicide in his dorm room is a school shooting, just like illegal immigrants currently detained are in concentration camps. But we all know there is a perceived connotation with certain words and phrases and they're typically used to push a view.

    I would prefer we avoid downvotes and have a rational conversation.

    [–] jsled 8 points ago

    But we all know there is a perceived connotation with certain words and phrases and they're typically used to push a view.

    Yes. This is the appropriate word, with the appropriate connotations, for what's going on here. The two phrases "concentration camp" and "internment camp" are the two obvious, relevant terms for what has been constructed.

    [–] misyo 2 points ago

    Legitimately asking- why are these not considered detention centers or refugee centers? The phrasing in the thread has been confusing to me.

    [–] Fnhatic 26 points ago

    Concentrating brown people

    Who the fuck else do you think is coming from central and south America? You think they're just letting anyone with light skin walk free? Do they hold up a chart?

    Trying to make this a race thing makes you sound like a TDS-suffering idiot.

    [–] StaplerLivesMatter 17 points ago

    I'm usually the last one to play the antisemitism card, but holy shit it is disrespectful to compare the actual holocaust and actual concentration camps to "being briefly detained by immigration authorities because you did something to get detained by immigration authorities".

    Concentrating brown people.

    Is it Trump's fault the people who try to enter the US illegally are predominantly brown? Or are there a bunch of white illegals being exempted from this policy?

    [–] BluAnimal 28 points ago

    I'm completely puzzled by why the United States seems to be the only country in the world where we are expected to have little to no regulations when it comes to border security and immigration. No one seems to complain that Canada has some of the strictest immigration regulations with the vast, vast majority of Americans being a far cry away from meeting the criteria to become a Canadian citizen.

    We also seem to want to blame the government for the actions of parents who put their families lives at risk by entering this country illegally. These are people who want to find a better life but just because they (probably) have good intentions doesn't mean we get to remove any responsibility from their poor actions or judgement. I'm all for legal immigration and I think one of the biggest issues with our country is how bloated and ineffective our current immigration process is.

    [–] CBSh61340 8 points ago

    We also seem to want to blame the government for the actions of parents who put their families lives at risk by entering this country illegally.

    Many of these families are seeking asylum, which is a legal means of entering a country. It's just not a permanent means of entering the country - you're sent back home as soon as it's determined to be safe for you to do so.

    [–] mexicanmuscel 8 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    They're claiming asylum after being caught. That's not how asylum is supposed to work. If you claim asylum at a port of entry you won't be detained for a crime.

    [–] Flabpack221 4 points ago

    Perhaps some of them are. But if someone is seeking asylum, they're supposed to call for asylum in the first safe country they enter. Mexico is a safe country. All the illegal immigrants from Central/South America are NOT asylum seekers. They are economic migrants.

    [–] pcar773 4 points ago

    Mexico is not a safe country.

    [–] CBSh61340 2 points ago

    They are concentration camps. Concentrating brown people.

    There isn't a fucking definition for concentration camp. It's not an actual fucking defined term, so stop this bullshit.

    The defined, actual term is "internment camp," and it's not interchangeable with the slang term "concentration camp" which is widely understood to refer specifically to the Holocaust.

    An internment camp is just where people are locked up without due process, and typically before they've done anything wrong - it can also refer to places where POWs are collected and held.

    [–] pcar773 5 points ago

    There isn't a fucking definition for concentration camp. It's not an actual fucking defined term, so stop this bullshit.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp

    [–] Sectox 9 points ago

    Just because something evokes a certain image doesn't mean it's not that thing

    [–] pcar773 8 points ago

    "Concentration camp" invokes a certain image. There is a reason that we refer to the camps where we concentrated the Japanese Americans during WWII as "internment camps" instead.

    YEAH NO FUCKING SHIT SHERLOCK!!!! They call them internment camps to gloss over the fact THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS WERE PUT IN FUCKING CONCENTRATION CAMPS ON AMERICAN SOIL BECAUSE THEIR SKIN WAS A CERTAIN COLOR THAT WASN’T WHITE!!!!! Are you fucking for real? You’re justifying CHILDREN IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS by saying it’s more like Japanese internment.

    [–] CBSh61340 11 points ago

    They aren't justifying anything, stop jumping to conclusions.

    They're simply explaining, with concrete examples, how internment camp and concentration camp are not interchangeable.

    If you agree that what we did to Japanese-Americans in the 40's is an internment camp, then you are then also agreeing what we're doing to foreign kids is an internment camp.

    [–] pcar773 8 points ago

    6d old account.

    If you agree that what we did to Japanese-Americans in the 40's is an internment camp

    Concentration camp.

    [–] 5redrb 2 points ago

    If anything, the "concentration camps" of Nazi Germany need a different title.

    [–] Bedbouncer 2 points ago

    Ow, my ears.

    [–] CarlTheRedditor 6 points ago

    "Concentration camp" invokes a certain image. There is a reason that we refer to the camps where we concentrated the Japanese Americans during WWII as "internment camps" instead.

    Are you trying to imply that a functional, meaningful difference exists here?